First cause, appearances and mind

I understand why you deleted my answer in this thread. I have now edited and explained it. Could you please read it again. I hope you'll feel able to undelete it. If not then I would question the value of this site.


I think comparative religion is, or should be fine here: if you can be sure not to, and make it clear that you're not, pushing your personal opinion.

i.e. don't just quote a sutta, the bible, and construct a long winded argument for some parallel.

The same standards -- quoting from / citing academic material -- should apply, at least.

  • This question started, "Im asking about the Vajrayana or Mahayana view, but theravadan views are fine too." Even when a question doesn't explicitly start like that, answers must assume that, because the OP is asking on this "Buddhism.SE" site, the OP is asking for an answer based on "Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice".
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 13 '20 at 14:42
  • i agree that the difference between a non buddhist answer and comparative religion is thin
    – user2512
    May 13 '20 at 14:48
  • 1
    There are some questions on the site tagged (i.e. intended as) comparative-religion but this wasn't one of them.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 13 '20 at 14:56
  • good point, the question should be tagged that way... cheers
    – user2512
    May 13 '20 at 15:03
  • It's not comparative religion, It's about the nature of Reality. But no worries. I don't understand the parochial approach to knowledge that is enforced here and must leave before I cause more trouble. .
    – user14119
    May 14 '20 at 12:23
  • @PeterJ I imagine different traditions have things to say, maybe similar things to say, about reality. But on this site only Buddhist doctrine is the topic: questions aren't allowed unless they're implicitly or explicitly asking about Buddhism, and answers are expected to be based on Buddhism. Each SE site has some kind of focus -- this site was created because its "community" of users wanted questions and answers about the topic of "Buddhism".
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 14 '20 at 21:08
  • I don't think you are causing much trouble. I deleted that one answer because it seemed "against the rules" -- I deleted it so it wouldn't cause trouble. You've posted 83 answers -- this is the third one (only the third one) I've deleted.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 14 '20 at 21:12

I realise you have (and always have had) a take on this subject which differs slightly from mine.

It's not that I want to be anti other religious doctrines, but there is a time and a place, and this site is specifically for Buddhist doctrine, other users don't want answers which aren't based on Buddhism, and I'm expected to moderate it accordingly. If the OP had wanted a answer from a different tradition then they could have asked on a different site (perhaps on Hinduism.SE etc.).

I'm convinced that previous answers on this site have been deleted for not being based on Buddhism (often to the annoyance of the answers' authors), and trying to apply the "rules" or precedent even-handedly suggests this answer should be deleted. That's my opinion.

I have asked Andrei to give a second opinion.

  • I'm sorry to say this, but if this answer is considered off-topic then the site is not the place I thought it was. I'm unable to understand this sectarian approach and to me it seems fabulously counter-productive and unhelpful, so please could you delete my account. Thanks for the various interesting chats and good luck for the future.
    – user14119
    May 13 '20 at 11:23
  • What is Buddhist doctrine tho? Some people post views as truth that aren't even held by any particular schools, why do you tolerate that and delete this? If the OP posted without references to other traditions you would UNDOUBTEDLY let that answer be
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 7:21
  • @116PУC It's not my job to detect/censor wrong answers. For example an answer like, "The Buddha said 'foo'", would be on-topic even though it's wrong or false. Detecting, voting on, improving on wrong answers is for the community of users and the reader. In the deleted answer, Peter wrote, "These reference are not Buddhist, but descriptions of origins don't vary much in the accounts of those who claim knowledge." And I agree that, so far as I know, Sri Aurobindo and Lao Tsu (who he was quoting) don't claim to be Buddhist -- so that makes it off-topic.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 15 '20 at 7:36
  • My point is that if Peterj just posted the lines of reasoning with referencing a 3rd party that answer would not be deleted. You seem to be basing your decision not on the content and quality of interpretation but rather the mere fact that answer seems based on the thoughts of not self-proclaimed Buddhists
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 7:45
  • I think PeterJ generally posts good content, it's a big loss to the community to have him quit over untidy moderation practices.
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 7:49
  • Anyway i want ask what happens to the content after i delete the account?
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 7:51
  • It's just amusing how you keep refering to a Buddhist doctrine as a standard when there are numerous mutually contradicting doctrines included in this Buddhism. Theravada considers Mahayana fake Dhamma and certainly not Buddhism. So why on earth do you consider both to be Buddhism, this isn't very Buddhist.
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 7:57
  • And when a crazy person writes something outlandish claiming it to be the Dhamma you allow that to stand, views completely foreign to both mahayana and theravada you tolerate but god forbid someone quotes a philosopher or a sectarian thought...
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 8:01
  • @116PУC answer seems based on the thoughts of not self-proclaimed Buddhists Yes that's so. Anyway i want ask what happens to the content after i delete the account? Your user profile (including your username) is deleted. Your posts remain undeleted, with an anonymous author name like "user8527". So why on earth do you consider both to be Buddhism A policy of this site is that schools/traditions which self-proclaim themselves as Buddhist are on-topic -- so for example including SGI or Triratna.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 15 '20 at 8:02
  • I'm not sure what you mean by forbidding "sectarian" thought. This is explicitly not a Theravada-only or Mahayana-only site, and moderators aren't supposed to censor/forbid the views of "other" schools of Buddhism.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 15 '20 at 8:05
  • If self-proclamation isn't enough why then allow people to post that there is no rebirth? I think this is all very willy-nilly and inconsistent. The fact that nobody took time to examine the content beyond mere " seems to be based on outside thought" is shocking. Obviously the lesson here is "if your answer is not based on Buddhist texts then just do not disclose your references and you will be fine". So you seemingly punished PeterJ for being transparent about his influences.
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 8:10
  • As far as i can tell the deleted content at this point may or may not be aligned with mahayana/theravada doctrine, that is because it's not been show to be faulty or a contradiction by anyone.
    – user8527
    May 15 '20 at 8:17
  • @116PУC It's true that references aren't required (see here). An answer which doesn't appear to be and doesn't claim to be based on Buddhism may be deleted -- if it's an answer based on Maths or Physics or the Gospel or etc. Some cases are borderline and I may delete it only if the community downvotes it (see here). Answers based only on personal experience may be challenged (see here).
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 15 '20 at 8:21
  • @116PУC Generally if someone asks a question on this site, and someone answers only something like, "The Gospel says etc.", then I'd delete that answer as off-topic. Because it isn't usually a question of whether the Gospel aligns with Buddhist doctrine on some subject, the thing is that by asking on this site the OP wasn't asking for an answer based on the Gospel.
    – ChrisW Mod
    May 15 '20 at 8:25

Remove the direct quotes and other 3rd party references to non Buddhist sources, put it in your own words and most importantly claim it to be Buddhism (this you already did in edit 2). Then it will be fine for sure, because this is how this place currently operates on suspended judgement. If you remove the 3rd party stuff there will be absolutely no basis for censorship.

This is what the moderator explained to me, at least that's how i understood it.

Aisi the mods here have a problem with your expression not the meaning, you can edit your post to retain it's meaning by slightly changing the expression and they will allow it. This actually proves that you were censored on a bullshit cause because they say "it's not based on Buddhism" which is essentially a meaning based censorship clause.

Also don't just quit because of moderation, complain to the SE staff first.

I actually didn't even read your post and i didn't have to because i know in principle ANYTHING goes on this site and users are even allowed to edit Sutta such that where it says 'this didn't happen' you can change it to 'this did happen' and present it as a Sutta excerpt, there is at least 1 instance where this was allowed to stand.

The moderation policies are terribly flawed but at least we can push for consistency in that.

You must log in to answer this question.